There is no such thing as The Bible

Accordign to you the mrer fact that the Jews rehected books from their canon is enough to decide that they don;'t belong in the Christian canon. But when it comes to a book you approve of the judgement of the Jews isn't enough. A bit of a double stndard there,You claimned that Ezekiel indicated that Daniel was a contemproary. Now you are moving the goalposts. And considering that "Daniel" is mentioned with the Edomite Job we can't even conclude that Ezekiel's Daniel is a Jewish figure. If Ezekiel's Daniel were THE Daniel it is surprising that he is mentioned so little by Exekiel or any otherbooks of the Bible. And even that would not remove the evidence that the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd Century BC.And your historical error was in claiming that the Deuterocanonical books had been added to the Bible during the Reformation. The fact is that they had been considered part of Christian scripture even before the Bible was compiled, and were included in the Bible until Luther took them out. As Ihave pointed out the Council of Trent only reaffirmed a long-standing view.r

Say the Jews! The Tanakh is split into different groups. Judaism 101As you can see, the Book of Daniel is a part of the writings.See also Daniel: Wise Man and Visionary

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

IMHO it's important to also remember the Talmudic Tradition. This is important for several reasons.First, by design it was maintained as an oral format. For most of early Jewish history it was oral only by consent, students memorized what earlier Rabbis had said on a subject, nothing was ever written down.Second, an acknowledged and accepted practice was 'Argument in the style of'; had Rabbi so-and-so addressed this issue he would have said "...". These attributions were not written as we would today, as I outlined above, but rather simply inserted as though the person had actually made such a statement.Third, its very existence shows that very little of the laws and ceremony were accepted as being literal. It was acknowledged that all existed in a cultural context and so must be viewed subjectively in relation to other things going on at the time. This is particularly evident in areas such as defining work on the sabbath, when to celebrate holidays or what constitutes a contract or obligation.Fourth, Judaism was seen as a very practical, everyday social structure beyond simple religion. It was an outline for every step in life and every social interaction. It was totally invasive and meant to control and direct social, day to day, interaction between Jews, between Jews and non-Jews, and between non-Jews living within a Jewish community.Finally, there is no answer to any question in the Talmudic Tradition, no one correct answer. Instead there is a recognition, a celebration even, of differing viewpoints.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Finally, there is no answer to any question in the Talmudic Tradition, no one correct answer. Instead there is a recognition, a celebration even, of differing viewpoints.

---

Nicely put, and this is something that many non-Jewish people who quote the talmud just don't get.

I agree. One of the biggest problems I see with understanding Christ and Christianity is that folk forget that Jesus was a Jew, a Rabbi raised in the Talmudic tradition.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Are you trying to say that Jesus wasn't a 21st. century American Southern Baptist?

Re. Daniel, who the heck was he then, if not the author of Daniel?...(your link on him did not work for me by the way, just a blank page). I'm still waiting to hear about all these issues about the history in the book after 134BC and why the Jews still accepted the book anyway, despite all these supposed problems. Sounds like a contradictory argument to me.
Re. Ezekiel, how am I moving the goalposts? Didn't I say finding evidence of authorship was key from the beginning...so wouldn't internal evidence of other books be a part of that process??? If not, why not??
You can argue all you want about it being part of Christian scripture, but no Apochryphal book is quoted in the NT as divinely inspired scripture would be. And the Apochrypha is not in the Law, Prophets or Writings of the Jews. I don't know why you are chafing at Daniel, and yet swallowing the Apochrypha! (Unless you were making the other guy's point, if so, ignore that last remark). I really would like to know what the point of all this is. What is it about the book of Daniel that you dislike so much?

Here is a rather extensive site about early jewish writings, and this page specificall about danielDanielA small sample

quote:

---

W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)

---

You also don't seem to understand the structure of the tankah. Daniel is in the 'writings'..

'If the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it`s good enough for me.'Anon Fundy."If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it's good enough for us." - former Texas Governor Miriam Ferguson, on barring foreign language teaching

I know of at least 4 ways of interpreting Dan. 9:24-27. You are obviously taking the liberal approach of the 4. The statement you quoted has got to be one of the dumbest I have ever heard..."that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray." A prophecy of the kind he is talking about, would not be a prophecy, if his statement is correct. Fortunately, it isn't correct. A prophecy can be accurate when given before the fact..if it has been revealed by God.
Anyway, needless to say, I would not approach the passage the way your quote does. Of course, most Christians would read it as referring to Jesus. I find it curious that reading it your way, makes it erroneous, reading it my way does not.
One big problem with your quote is that it is based on the old Maccabean date hypothesis of the 3rd century neo-Platonic philosopher, Porphyry, revived by rationalistic scholars, J.D. Michaelis & J.G. Eichhorn in the 18th century.
To quote from Gleason L. Archer's "Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties" - "In order for this hypothesis to be true, a few adjustments in the text of Daniel are necessary. The actual text of Daniel indicates that the empire sequence was as follows: 1st kingdom - Chaldean, 2nd - Medo-Persian, 3rd - Greek, 4th - Rome. But since the Roman Empire did not take over the Holy Land until 63B.C., it was necessary to eliminate that identification altogether in order to preserve the rational defensibility of a Maccabean date hypothesis."
I could say more but needless to say, I'm not a fan of 'adjusting the text' to fit my views. I have yet to find a more ancient Jewish basis for this hypothesis.
Yes, please tell me about how they view the Writings...the Jewish & Christian sources I'm finding don't say anything like what you are implying about them.

Unfortunately it is Archer who needs to "adjust" the Empires of Daniel. Daniel's "prophecy" is almost entirely concerned with the Hellenistic states, with no room for a succeeding empire. The Hellenistic empire fits the legs of the image well - divided, somme parts strong (iron) and others weak (clay). And this is in the text of Daniel itself. Rome on the other hand is only briefly mentioned for it's interference in the conflict between the Seleucids and the PtolomeysNeedless to say Archer - like mot inerrantists IS a fan of "adjusting" the text of the Bible to fit his own beliefs.

I was under the impression that a book was assumed to be accurate historically until proven otherwise. If there is an interpretation which suggests that the book is wrong in some way, and an interpretation that makes the book right, why would you pick the former?? Because the latter doesn't conform to YOUR beliefs? The fact is, the latter interpretation avoids a key mistake you say the book made. So why stick with your original interpretation?

quote:

---

I was under the impression that a book was assumed to be accurate historically until proven otherwise.

---

Well that's absolutely wrong. Without a reasonable idea of who wrot it, when and for what reason why should we assume that it was historically accurate ?

quote:

---

If there is an interpretation which suggests that the book is wrong in some way, and an interpretation that makes the book right, why would you pick the former??

---

In this case because the former is truer to the actual text. You said that you weren't in favour of "adjusting" the text. So presumably you consider that a valid reason.

quote:

---

The fact is, the latter interpretation avoids a key mistake you say the book made. So why stick with your original interpretation?

---

I'm not sure what mistake you're referring to, but are you arguing in favour of adjusting the text so it doesn't include errors ? If not then you need to deal with what it actually says instead of arguing that we should choose the interpetation that fits YOUR beliefs best.i

One assumption that the late daters argue is that the 4 kingdoms were 1) Chaldean, 2) Mede, 3) Persian & 4) Greek. I think it quite clear from Dan. 5:28 that Daniel says the kingdom was given to the Medes AND the Persians, not the Medes, THEN the Persians, it was a federated empire between the two, not two seperate empires (if Daniel was writing in the 530's B.C., as conservative scholars claim, this would certainly be the case as the two kingdoms were joined around 549 B.C). So without Rome, the late daters are missing a kingdom. The text doesn't use the term Greek/Greece or Rome/Roman in the book of Daniel so I don't see why it could not be open to interpretation. Re. the 'mistake' that liberal scholars say was made in that link I got earlier...one of the problems with your interpretation was that someone dies in a way which didn't actually happen (Antiochus IV or whatever). You say your way fits the facts, well, I don't know where you get that from, on that point, it certainly doesn't.
Re. assuming an ancient document to be true until proven otherwise, good historians do that all the time.
It is also obvious that the end of Daniel in no way refers to a past historical event (like the 160's B.C.) but to one that is still future (see Dan. 11:40).

quote:

---

assuming an ancient document to be true until proven otherwise, good historians do that all the time.

---

turns to historian lying on the sofaShe gave me a really long answer but it basically broke down to "no" - everything is context, the document may have an internal reality but that does not apply that it is "true" in terms of the wider reality.(Damn she doesn't seem to want to stop...... god I'm going to have this for hours and hours....Now she has asked "what documents?" and I said "oh bibical type stuff", this has caused her to leaped off the sofa and made some noises that I'm not sure that a female scholar should make but were rather negative.....)